Sound evidence and reason for god (s) free

[ProfessorDavey]

Science only fills in gaps in scientific knowledge. Just remember that.

In its truest sense, science is a process, a method - as such there is no such thing as 'scientific knowledge' merely knowledge derived from the scientific method.

So the reality is that science fills in the gaps in knowledge. If you want to argue that there are gaps in knowledge that are not amenable to the scientific method then the onus is on you to demonstrate the nature of that knowledge - and please don't use circular god of the gaps arguments.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In its truest sense, science is a process, a method - as such there is no such thing as 'scientific knowledge' merely knowledge derived from the scientific method.

So the reality is that science fills in the gaps in knowledge. If you want to argue that there are gaps in knowledge that are not amenable to the scientific method then the onus is on you to demonstrate the nature of that knowledge - and please don't use circular god of the gaps arguments.

That’s rich coming from someone who when asked the nature of the laws of nature said that the nature of the laws of nature were that they were fundamental laws.

[ProfessorDavey]

That’s rich coming from someone who when asked the nature of the laws of nature said that the nature of the laws of nature were that they were fundamental laws.

Stop lying Vlad - where did I ever say that.

[ProfessorDavey]

That’s rich coming from someone who when asked the nature of the laws of nature said that the nature of the laws of nature were that they were fundamental laws.

Look squirrel!!!

Classic Vlad diversionary tactic.

Now back to the question:

If you want to argue that there are gaps in knowledge that are not amenable to the scientific method then the onus is on you to demonstrate the nature of that knowledge - and please don't use circular god of the gaps arguments.

Can you respond to that please Vlad rather than trying to distract.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

Stop lying Vlad - where did I ever say that.

You didn't, any more than I argued for scientism. That's what he does though - ignore the arguments that undo him or lie about them. There is nothing else.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stop lying Vlad - where did I ever say that.

Reply#81
My response is Reply#82

[ProfessorDavey]

Reply#81

On what particular planet (orbiting around a sun, due to gravity) does reply 81 translate to, or could be remotely interpreted as meaning:

That’s rich coming from someone who when asked the nature of the laws of nature said that the nature of the laws of nature were that they were fundamental laws.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

On what particular planet (orbiting around a sun, due to gravity) does reply 81 translate to, or could be remotely interpreted as meaning:

That’s rich coming from someone who when asked the nature of the laws of nature said that the nature of the laws of nature were that they were fundamental laws.

See Reply#81 AND Reply#82.
 I asked what form the laws take bearing in mind their existence as you said was not dependent on time and space and you said they existed as laws. In other words, you are either stumped by the question or you are taking the piss or both. It's all there in replys~81 and 82

Me:If the existence of the laws is not dependent on these for it's form then in what form does it exist?

You:They exist as a fundamental law of physics just as gravity does, or light or sound etc

[Owlswing]

First of all Physicists do talk in terms of a finely tuned universe
secondly I started by talking about fixed tune
Third, we all know who Adam's was arguing with and what argument they were making. That the universe has constants which do not appear to change and that matter and energy are not constantly created rather than the chaos which would occur in unconscious process is what I am arguing.

By stopping speculation and saying the universe just is, is just atheists of the God dodging variety saying ''that's far enough for me, thank you''

The motivation of most atheists here is not to defend science but to defend atheism....In my humble opinion.

Humble!!??

YOU??

Not this siude of the Second Coming!

Sneering Arrogance is far more your forte!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Humble!!??

Alright then...….Most humble opinion.

[ProfessorDavey]

See Reply#81 AND Reply#82.

Let's nail the first issue - reply 82 is a post from you, not from me - so totally irrelevant to what I think.

[ProfessorDavey]

See Reply#81 AND Reply#82.
 I asked what form the laws take bearing in mind their existence as you said was not dependent on time and space and you said they existed as laws. In other words, you are either stumped by the question or you are taking the piss or both. It's all there in replys~81 and 82

Me:If the existence of the laws is not dependent on these for it's form then in what form does it exist?

You:They exist as a fundamental law of physics just as gravity does, or light or sound etc

Nice bit of quote mining - taking a section of my reply, out of context, and using it to imply something which isn't the case if you read the whole post.

I did not say that fundamental physical laws exist as fundamental laws, just cos they do.

Nope I went on to say that we know that exist because we can verify them through observation and prediction (and in doing so comparing it to argument such as you make that god just is, get over it). So here is what I said:

Nope - because the difference is one of consistency and prediction.

So to take gravity as an example - I can use the fundamental laws of physics to predict the orbits of the planets. I can use (and people have) anomalies in planetary orbits to predict the presence of a more distant planet affecting gravity - and guess what, you find that planet. I can use those fundamental laws (and their indirect measurement) to design a rocket with its trajectory to leave earths orbit and be capture by the moon's orbit to allow astronauts to visit the moon.

Sure the measurement may be indirect, but the concepts and the laws can be verified through prediction and through the predictable function of engineering systems or identification of physical phenomena.

None of that can be attributed to a purported god - people have at times tried to base predictions, observations and outcomes on god, but guess what ... the earth is at the centre of the universe, the rocket crashes, the church congregation aren't protected by god's love from dying from COVID-19.

[flower girl]

It's not merely the lack of physical evidence, its the combination of a multiple contradictory claims in favour of multiple religious pantheons, the lack of consistency within most of those religious claims and their lack of compatibility with what we do have evidence for in reality and simply the logical implausibilities that arise if some of the most common claims are actually investigated.
O.

There is this to which I say, yes.  I agree.  This is why we simply can't argue, ever, who God is--even for those like me who believes in God. (I shrink back a little when I say this.  I have this faith, that I can't explain, and that is unacceptable to all Christians who were part of my formative years. But, this faith is so powerful a part of my whole life.  I just can't defend it. But, I'm always willing to try and rarely take offense. (Warning: I do disregard out of hand any comments that are critical of me rather than critical, in terms of offering a counter point, of what I've said.)

This is important as to any discussion going further. (I can't seem to find a way to quote others and reply here.  I'll figure it out, just not in this post.  I am a "newbie."  That's the best defense I have right now.   )

[flower girl]

Whilst quantum physics does undermine some of what Newtonian physics had sought to establish, that doesn't undermine Newtonian physics' place in life. 

Again, agree.  It's the "place in life" that is in question.

[flower girl]

Not entirely sure what you mean by "that which we perceive" in this context, and what do you think the "proof" is?

That "what we perceive" or "can imperially know" is proof of evidence of all there is.

[flower girl]

Newtonian physics breaks down at the scales of the very large and the very small, but that’s not to say that it doesn’t work perfectly well in between.

The beauty of Newtonian physics is that is it perfect, irrefutably able to predict precisely--even to the microscopically level--what will happen. 

But, quantum physics challenges Newtonian physics as the final reality, that we've always truly "known" the physical world in which we live.

I'm just suggesting that looking for "proof" of God's existence is challenged by our own physical understanding of just exactly what "proof" is. 

[ekim]

I'm just suggesting that looking for "proof" of God's existence is challenged by our own physical understanding of just exactly what "proof" is.

I think that before that there needs to be a definition of what the concept 'God' represents otherwise you won't know what to look for or whether you have found what you are looking for.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm just suggesting that looking for "proof" of God's existence is challenged by our own physical understanding of just exactly what "proof" is.

Welcome to our happy throng flower girl.

Moving on to your post - proof is a challenging concept, even in scientific terms. What is required is evidence. For an atheist like myself who does not believe in god or gods due to a lack of evidence, there needs to be sufficient evidence for the existence of god or gods that is compelling enough for me to change my position. So far I've not seen any evidence, let alone sufficient evidence.

Now Vlad often tries to shift the onus of proof/evidence onto atheists. That isn't where it lies - we make no claim for god or gods, so there is no onus on us to provide any evidence as we have made no claim. The onus rests squarely on the theists - if you make a claim that god or gods exists the onus is on you to provide the evidence in support of your claim. And if you fail to do so why would we atheists shift in our position that we do not believe in god or gods as we have not received evidence sufficient for us to believe in god or gods.

Now ekim is right that you need to define what you actually mean by god as there are as many definitions as you can shake a stick at. And also trying to wriggle out of providing evidence by claiming gods aren't amenable to normal evidential tests (as Vlad does) butters no parsnips with me as an atheist - frankly I don't really care whether the lack of evidence that has been provided for god or gods is because there is no evidence or because gods aren't amenable to evidence - they are one and the same in terms of my lack of belief in gods. That challenge is for you, as a theist, to sort out - not for me as an atheist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Flower Girl,

The beauty of Newtonian physics is that is it perfect, irrefutably able to predict precisely--even to the microscopically level--what will happen.

Depends what you mean by “microscopically”, but Newtonian physics (or mechanics) while incredibly useful for most day-to-day purposes becomes more approximate at the quantum level. 

But, quantum physics challenges Newtonian physics as the final reality, that we've always truly "known" the physical world in which we live.

At a deeper, more precise level perhaps but we cannot say “final” because we can’t know whether there are underlying strata of reality yet to be discovered.

I'm just suggesting that looking for "proof" of God's existence is challenged by our own physical understanding of just exactly what "proof" is.

First, “proof” is freighted with meaning that’s superfluous here. Mathematicians and logicians use it, but science doesn’t. Rather it looks to reason and evidence that indicates provisionally the truth of a proposition. That’s why in science theories are in principle falsifiable.

Second though, what you’re attempting here is a fallacy in reasoning called shifting the burden of proof. If someone wants to argue for “god” (and if they can actually come up with a coherent meaning for that term) then the burden is with them to show that’s it’s more probably true than not. You cannot in other words assume god a priori, and then argue that the problem with demonstrating the claim lies with “our own physical understanding of just exactly what "proof" is”. If you think there’s a god and you want the claim to be taken seriously, then it’s your job to tell us how the claim can be investigated and justified.     

[ProfessorDavey]

First, “proof” is freighted with meaning that’s superfluous here. Mathematicians and logicians use it, but science doesn’t. Rather it looks to reason and evidence that indicates provisionally the truth of a proposition. That’s why in science theories are in principle falsifiable.

Second though, what you’re attempting here is a fallacy in reasoning called shifting the burden of proof. If someone wants to argue for “god” (and if they can actually come up with a coherent meaning for that term) then the burden is with them to show that’s it’s more probably true than not. You cannot in other words assume god a priori, and then argue that the problem with demonstrating the claim lies with “our own physical understanding of just exactly what "proof" is”. If you think there’s a god and you want the claim to be taken seriously, then it’s your job to tell us how the claim can be investigated and justified.   

Blimey BHS - how frighteningly similar you post is in substance to mine - although our phrasing is different.

Unsurprisingly, I couldn't agree more with what you say.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Prof,

Blimey BHS - how frighteningly similar you post is in substance to mine - although our phrasing is different.

Unsurprisingly, I couldn't agree more with what you say.

I hadn't seen yours Prof before I posted, but if you think that mine are more than the palest shadow of your own I'll take that as a compliment indeed   

[ProfessorDavey]

Hi Prof,

I hadn't seen yours Prof before I posted, but if you think that mine are more than the palest shadow of your own I'll take that as a compliment indeed 

Yours has the advantage of being more succinct

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Interesting Abstract on definition of atheism here

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy/article/defining-atheism-and-the-burden-of-proof/DD148DAD681AF7CD8B772FF7651ED8FF

[ProfessorDavey]

Interesting Abstract on definition of atheism here

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/philosophy/article/defining-atheism-and-the-burden-of-proof/DD148DAD681AF7CD8B772FF7651ED8FF

Have you actually read the article Vlad - rather than just the abstract. Without having actually read the paper it is pretty difficult to assess whether the erstwhile ex-chemical engineer, turned muslim theological scholar in training has anything interesting to say.

His peers certainly don't seem to think his arguments are worthy of note as this paper has been cited in other scholarly articles (the key marker of the impact of a piece of academic work) exactly zero times.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

……... it is pretty difficult to assess whether the erstwhile ex-chemical engineer, turned muslim theological scholar in training has anything interesting to say.

Oh dear, isn't that the genetic fallacy?